Saturday, September 29, 2012

Americans have always been viciously partisan. The bipartisanship
of the 40 years from FDR to Nixon was a freak episode due solely to the
willingness of liberals to cut African-Americans out of the deal to get
"socialistic" benefits for whites. Civil rights blew that deal to
smithereens, and now we're back to normal: viciously partisan.

There was
something crucial that changed all of American politics after 1960: the
Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement and its aftershocks
had a dramatic impact on the country that would not be reflected in most
issues polling. One of those impacts was on political partisanship.
I've noted in the past that it was largely the impact of the Civil
Rights Movement (combined with the power of big money to lobby the
racist vote) that gradually killed bipartisanship in the United States:

But by far the biggest is that the bipartisanship of the
mid-20th century was a special artifact of the uneasy alliance between
traditional urban liberal tribes and religious Dixiecratic populists in
the South and Midwest. As I've written before,
FDR was quite able to aggressively take on the financial and corporate
interests of his time with a broad coalition. But he couldn't pass an
anti-lynching law without destroying his support base, and he was all
too willing to institute the Japanese internment camps. In other words,
FDR could take on the power of big money with ease, but he couldn't take
on the power of Big Racism.

The result of this dynamic was an uneasy bipartisanship between
otherwise competing interests. Men like Strom Thurmond would vote for
"socialist" policies as long as only whites got the benefits.

The
advent of the Civil Rights movement marked the beginning of the end of
bipartisanship. As tax dollars were increasingly seen as going toward
non-whites, Dixiecrats became Republicans and allies of big business
interests. Similar dynamics occurred with anti-Hispanic sentiment in the
West. All the religious fervor that had been reserved for progressive
social justice issues by the "Progressive" movement in the late 19th
century (which included, by the way, quite conservative ideas like the
prohibition of alcohol: late 19th century progressives would have
strongly opposed modern liberals on issues like marijuana legalization
alone...) flipped to socially conservative issues. The women's equality
movement only added further fuel to the socially conservative
patriarchal fire.

At this point it was easy and natural for the racist culture
warriors to align completely with the corporatists. The need for uneasy
alliances disappeared. The rationale for men like Strom Thurmond to
support New Deal policies and chat about them at cozy cocktail parties
disappeared. The battle lines were set.

I'm sure the fractured media environment is partly to blame for the
increased partisan fervor. But that's not all. It's also a largely
cultural phenomenon driven by a difference between the legacy of those
who favor expanded rights for women and minorities, and those who don't.
That in turn affects cultural issues of urbanism versus suburbanism and
a host of other touchstones that are merely reflections of that same
divide, but wouldn't show up on most issues-based polling that is the
bread and butter of political scientists and media analysts.

Increased partisan fervor, in other words, is a real cultural
phenomenon, not a media-driven tribal epiphenomenon. But to call out why that is would be hurtful to some people's feelings and cultural heritage, and thus cannot be said in polite discourse.

The problem with bipartisanship today is not that it's racist; it's that it's downright destructive.

When both parties hold the same position on a policy that's harmful to the economy - say, letting Wall Street loot the Treasury and kill Main Street - that's bipartisanship and it's bad for the country.

When both parties refuse to discuss the elephant in the room - say, the covert use of drones to murder civilians in countries with whom we are not at war - that's bipartisanship and it's bad for the country.

Vicious partisanship by both parties is essential to successful democracy.

We need Democratic office-holders who will stand up and proclaim: "cutting entitlements is wrong, and anybody who claims otherwise is lying."

Elect vicious partisans who will chew nails and spit rust. They will save the country.

No comments:

About Me

"Blue" in Blue in the Bluegrass refers to my politics, not my state of mind, although being progressive-democratic in Kentucky is not for the faint of heart.
The Bluegrass Region of Kentucky is Central Kentucky, the area around Lexington. It's also sometimes known as the Golden Triangle, the region formed by Louisville in the west, Cincinnati in the north and Lexington in the east-south corner. This is the most economically advanced, politically progressive and aesthically beautiful area of the state. Also the most overpopulated by annoying yuppies and the most endangered by urban sprawl.
A Yellow Dog Democrat is one who will vote for even a yellow dog if it is running as a Democrat. I can't claim to be quite that fanatically partisan, especially since quite a few candidates who run as Democrats in Kentucky are more Republican than a lot of Republicans I can name.
But I do love the story Kentucky House leader Rocky Adkins never tires of telling about the old-timer in Eastern Kentucky who was once accused of being willing to vote for Satan if Satan ran as a Democrat. Spat back the old-timer:
"Not in a primary, I wouldn't!"
Amen.